A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution

isie

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
9,552
#21
There we go. This is the crux of the issue. Ingrained beliefs stopping the acquisition of new knowledge in its tracks.
on the flip side look at me - he thinks it was against his belief - I dont.
you could say we both educated the same way religiously (same are / community etc) yet we have an opposite view on this,
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,123
#22
I must join the chorus in saying, "What a good post". It is great to see someone taking the time and effort to go through this process and truly give ToE the scrutiny and attention that it so sorely needs in the realms of religion.

I can tell by your writing that my following statement will be something that you have likely considered, but I will put it out there anyway.
You started off, full on Creationist. After some reading, you saw all the merits of ToE. Had you been raised without a faith, that would have been that. But your faith prevented you from fully adopting ToE into your understanding of the universe. All the while your mind knows that ToE is right, so it demands that you adopt it, so you compromise with your first step. That Everything evolved except humans.

Likely some research into Human evolution and papers on things like the 23rd(24th?) chromosome fusing led you to realise that you could not keep this opinion valid in your own mind. So you then searched again for a way to reconcile these two ideas. You came across the two bodies hypothesis and this works for you. Because it now leaves you with everything evolving, including us, while adding a soul, that is beyond the realms of science.

So I will ask, why the soul? I mean for you to consider this outside of your faith. Because you can easily agree that your faith has held you back from accepting something that you know is true. It took you years it seems, to go from first researching ToE, to finally reconciling it with your faith. That process was that long because of your faith, not your critical mind's lack of ability to understand the subject matter.

This is not meant sarcastically or patronisingly at all:
So you bring the Soul in to "Save your Faith", from the ToE. Why do that when you can already see how much your faith has hindered you in understanding the amazing world that your God created? Surely your God would not want to hinder you from appreciating his magnificent creation. Do you see the conundrum that is inherent in the current position you hold?
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
29,727
#23
Dawkins is not the only one guilty of this,unfortunately many ex-christian atheists just lump Islam as being in the exact same boat as christianity and try to use evolution to disprove the existence of GOD or the relevance of religion.I have experienced it on this forum also,fortunately there are many actual scientific minded individuals and atheists on here who can easily see that evolution does not justify belief in GOD or lack of it,it just explains mechanisms and methods in which organisms of the earth developed to the current state and its very very useful in predicting results of biological actions so that it helps us move forward.
Well said. If someone is trying to use evolution to demonstrate that deities don't exist then that individual has failed to understand what science is about.

We get far too many people, and I agree I have seen some on this forum that do it, trying to use science to disprove the existence of a deity. Science can only be used to challenge claims made concerning the physical.


Even if evolution is somehow proved to be incorrect the fact that it is useful as a model to predict scientific outcomes means it would still be useful to take humanity further,so studying evolution is not a waste of time by any means.A good example of this is Isaac newtons laws of nature were basically overridden by Einsteins theory of relativity,however we still use them to this day to calculate the velocity of a car rather than use relativity because of the predictable results in most scenarios which give us the needed accuracy in results.
I imagine we will see the theory of evolution change in some interesting ways over the next few decades. There are some interesting things happening that may have some impact.

As to whether or not evolution hangs around if it is falsified I'm not sure. Perhaps it will be falsified in such a manner that it is rendered entirely useless and chucked out altogether. That would be amazing and if it happens I hope to live long enough to see it.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
29,727
#24
on the flip side look at me - he thinks it was against his belief - I dont.
you could say we both educated the same way religiously (same are / community etc) yet we have an opposite view on this,
Even within a religion beliefs will differ from person to person. Thing is that if you believe something must be correct, without question, then, if ever something scientific arises that demonstrates that what you believe is wrong it will impede scientific progress.

If it is just you believing this then the impedance will be small, almost imperceptible. However if that belief is shared by a lot of people (as is this anti-evolution thing amongst Muslims and a schit load of Christians) then the impedance is going to be large.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
29,727
#25
Blue eyes are dominant, so a mother and a father with blue eyes are going to have a child with blue eyes, its impossible for it to be any different. This is an exact thing, so lets say this was something the creator decided long ago. Blue eyes will be dominant and this will be the rule.
Blue eyes are recessive. Brown eyes are dominant.

Though this is not strictly true BTW. Blue eyes just follows the rough behaviour one would expect in a recessive gene variant but eye colour is actually far more complex.

Still with the exception of a few cases, blue is recessive.
 
Last edited:

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,619
#26
Great read wayfarer.

Just one small note, and sorry to be pedantic, but scientifically speaking, you have a "small hypothesis" not "mini-theory". In Science theory can be tested and replicated, i doubt the same can be done with your hypothesis.
Much appreciated. I edited this correction into the original piece. Thanks.

I find it interesting that a couple of years after I "published" this small hypothesis online, some religious scholars are actually presenting it as their own. But I couldn't be bothered...
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
29,727
#27
Much appreciated. I edited this correction into the original piece. Thanks.

I find it interesting that a couple of years after I "published" this small hypothesis online, some religious scholars are actually presenting it as their own. But I couldn't be bothered...
Sue them and take your rightful place as a leading scholar. Then I can brag that I know you!!! :D
 

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,619
#28
I must join the chorus in saying, "What a good post". It is great to see someone taking the time and effort to go through this process and truly give ToE the scrutiny and attention that it so sorely needs in the realms of religion.

I can tell by your writing that my following statement will be something that you have likely considered, but I will put it out there anyway.
You started off, full on Creationist. After some reading, you saw all the merits of ToE. Had you been raised without a faith, that would have been that. But your faith prevented you from fully adopting ToE into your understanding of the universe. All the while your mind knows that ToE is right, so it demands that you adopt it, so you compromise with your first step. That Everything evolved except humans.

Likely some research into Human evolution and papers on things like the 23rd(24th?) chromosome fusing led you to realise that you could not keep this opinion valid in your own mind. So you then searched again for a way to reconcile these two ideas. You came across the two bodies hypothesis and this works for you. Because it now leaves you with everything evolving, including us, while adding a soul, that is beyond the realms of science.

So I will ask, why the soul? I mean for you to consider this outside of your faith. Because you can easily agree that your faith has held you back from accepting something that you know is true. It took you years it seems, to go from first researching ToE, to finally reconciling it with your faith. That process was that long because of your faith, not your critical mind's lack of ability to understand the subject matter.

This is not meant sarcastically or patronisingly at all:
So you bring the Soul in to "Save your Faith", from the ToE. Why do that when you can already see how much your faith has hindered you in understanding the amazing world that your God created? Surely your God would not want to hinder you from appreciating his magnificent creation. Do you see the conundrum that is inherent in the current position you hold?
That is a fair question. The answer is that it is not my faith that hindered me, but my understanding.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,123
#30
That is a fair question. The answer is that it is not my faith that hindered me, but my understanding.
I know you might say that, but it is clear from your writing that this is not entirely true. After looking into ToE and obviously understanding enough about it and it's implications, you backtracked and sought out a religious answer which you found in the "Everything but man hypothesis." Someone not affiliated to religion, with an equal intellect to yours, would have simply accepted it and possibly read more into it out of interest.
If you truly believe that statement, that it was your understanding that was lacking, then it is even more tragic. Because it is evident to anyone reading your initial post that your mind was more than up to the task, but religion not only hindered you, it also has you convinced that you are less intelligent than you are.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
29,727
#31
Lol, I would genuinely be dishonest if I did not acknowledge the positive role that you, porchrat, played in my journey.
Be sure to thank me in the acknowledgements when you write your first book so I can put it on my coffee table and 'accidentally' leave it open to that page when people come to visit. :D
 

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,619
#34
I know you might say that, but it is clear from your writing that this is not entirely true. After looking into ToE and obviously understanding enough about it and it's implications, you backtracked and sought out a religious answer which you found in the "Everything but man hypothesis." Someone not affiliated to religion, with an equal intellect to yours, would have simply accepted it and possibly read more into it out of interest.
If you truly believe that statement, that it was your understanding that was lacking, then it is even more tragic. Because it is evident to anyone reading your initial post that your mind was more than up to the task, but religion not only hindered you, it also has you convinced that you are less intelligent than you are.
I am not saying that. My limited understanding of science and of my religion (God's words / Islamic doctrine) held me back. Note that I did not know with absolute certainty that man evolved, heck, I still do not have absolute certainty in it. Even after my research, my knowledge remains limited. But it certainly is the view I feel most comfortable adopting.
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,123
#35
I am not saying that. My faulty understanding of my religion (God's words / Islamic doctrine) held me back.
Okay slight misunderstanding there then. This is still a statement that shows that your religion held you back. I know it doesn't seem that way to you, but honestly from outside of the box it is truly plain as day. It was not your Faulty understanding of your religion that held you back. But your need to find an interpretation of your religion, that could include ToE.
If you took religion out of that equation, you would have simply accepted the science and moved on. This is why we say that religion impedes scientific advancement. It doesn't even have to admonish scientific inquiry in it's scripture, it merely has to have a hold on you, and you will do all the impeding yourself.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,125
#37
Says the guy that underwent a massive journey in order to catch up to current science thanks mainly to his religious beliefs. :rolleyes:

Those societies that don't have to jump through all the hoops you had to have the inside track.

... is this maybe a usage of the term "impedance" that I am unaware of?
I have to say I did not have that barrier,I live my life according to islamic principles and do my science according to mathematically and logically sound principles,I've never felt the need to always reconcile any perceived differences because I know there can be different interpretations related to the times.

I cant see Islam as a barrier to any of the scientific minded individuals I know that are science orientated and many remain devout muslims.
 

Sodan

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
2,688
#38
Okay slight misunderstanding there then. This is still a statement that shows that your religion held you back. I know it doesn't seem that way to you, but honestly from outside of the box it is truly plain as day. It was not your Faulty understanding of your religion that held you back. But your need to find an interpretation of your religion, that could include ToE.
If you took religion out of that equation, you would have simply accepted the science and moved on. This is why we say that religion impedes scientific advancement. It doesn't even have to admonish scientific inquiry in it's scripture, it merely has to have a hold on you, and you will do all the impeding yourself.
That's quite an interesting observation. It is actually applicable to the adoption of any belief without a proper understanding as to the underlying reason(s) for the belief.

And that leads us to conclude that most laymen should hold no beliefs, and experts are only allowed beliefs in their field of expertise, and only insofar as they are able to comprehend the underlying reason(s) for said beliefs.

As far as I can see, that's the only way science will not be "held back". In wayfarer's case (it appears) his lack of understanding for the belief in creationism led him on a long road to his hypothesis.
 
Top